The coveted Best States ranking is part of an annual study that scores all 50 states on eight categories — health care, education, economy, opportunity, infrastructure, crime and corrections, fiscal stability and the most important of all for most of us, quality of life.

Sadly, Californians are in the pits by this life-quality metric, with the Golden State taking last place at No. 50. North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and South Dakota all kicked our butt in that category, according to this study.

“In addition to a healthy environment, a person’s quality of life is largely a result of their interactions with those around them,” as the U.S. News & World Report editors put it. “Studies show that when people feel socially supported, they experience greater happiness, as well as physical and mental health.”

In case it makes you feel any better, while California stinks in terms of quality of life at least it didn’t rank dead last in the overall rankings. We came in at No. 32 overall, although that’s well behind New Jersey (at No. 19), Florida (at No. 15), and Nebraska (at No. 7). Ouch.

The bottom line? The state performed well in terms of its economy, coming in at No. 4 (hello, high tech boom) but it fared terribly in categories such as citizen opportunity (No. 46) and fiscal stability (No. 43) in addition to the dreaded quality-of-life assessment (that scarring No. 50). Of course, as anyone who has tried to buy a house in the Bay Area knows, fiscal instability is basically our motto at this point.

Syl wrote:Sad....I was brought up thinking California must be a fabulous place to be thanks to songs by The mamas and the papas and the Beach boys.

It is. So, why do we put up with Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina? Cut them loose, and enjoy the life of abundance and fairness. They are a drag on us...they suck our wealth, and offer only racism, white nationalism and Neo-Nazism in return.

California came in 50th place in a ranking of the US states by quality of life.

The rankings considered metrics such as air quality, pollution, community engagement, and voter participation.

Some conservatives celebrated the news on social media.

California has the worst quality of life of the 50 US states, according to a recent ranking by U.S. News & World Report.The Golden State came in dead last in the rankings, released earlier this week in partnership with McKinsey & Co.

2. Social environment, comprising community engagement, social support, and voter participation.

North Dakota was crowned with the best quality of life, with two other Midwestern states — Minnesota and Wisconsin — rounding out the podium.

In other metrics, California didn't fare nearly as poorly. U.S. News & World Report deemed its economy the fourth best in the nation, and its business environment claimed the No. 1 spot. The state also ranked 11th in healthcare.

Still, the low mark on quality of life provided fodder for some conservative news sites and politicians.

"Californians scored poorly in part because they're simply insufferable," wrote Fox News in an article about the ranking. The article appeared on Fox News' front page under the headline "Failed State?"

Meanwhile, far-right-wing site Breitbart focused on California's high cost of living and immigration rates — two metrics that did not factor into the quality-of-life rankings.

Didge wrote:So how they measured this is not really what I would class as a fully comprehensive look at the Quality of life of people

Hence I would take such a view based on the measures with a pinch of salt.

Exactly my thoughts, Didge. It's audacious and presumptuous to measure anything called quality of life. The poll is a part of the tribalization going on in America today. California is liberal, wealthy, and successful, and anyone on the other side of those elements, is just looking for something to criticize and assuage their jealousy.

Maddog wrote:US world and news isn't fake news.

US News and World Report is a relic of the past. Even in its day, it was a relatively conservative, superficial rag, that could never compete with the likes of Time or Newsweek for timely and topical content. Wiki notes:

Wiki wrote:Historically, the magazine tended to be slightly more conservative than its two primary competitors, Time and Newsweek, and focused more on economic, health, and education stories.

Even more telling is the gloating by Fox News, mentioned in your (Didge's) post. The uber-conservative Murdoch company loves to wallow in this kind of mud.

US News and World Report is known for its best-ranking format. Best Colleges and Best Hospitals are among it's typical offerings. Its a format that is, itself, a bit twisted because tries to reduce diverse concepts to singular measures. In the end, the best state is where you want to live.

Me? After experiencing the east coast in New York City, Europe, Arizona as well as California, San Francisco, San Diego and Los Angeles, I would take California any day. First, any state I live in has got to have a coast. If I can't walk a dog on a beach within 10-minutes from my home, I'm not happy. That's why Arizona failed for me. A great university is a must, and the San Francisco area has two of the top three universities (Berkeley, Harvard and Stanford) in the US. Finally, weather is a big concern, and California has the best.

Cass, although earthquakes are a big concern, the entire Pacific Rim has an equal chance of falling into the ocean. Considering the size of the Pacific, there’s no place safe enough. No, the biggest threat to living in California is water. All of the US watershed flows eastward from the Divide, through the Missouri, Mississippi and Ohio River systems. Only the Colorado River flows westward, and it is bone dry by the time it reaches the Sea of Cortez. We have small, coastal tributaries, but in general the Continental Divide is way too far west to adequately deliver water supply for communities as large as Los Angeles. A large part of California's wealth is in agriculture, and that takes water.

California came in 50th place in a ranking of the US states by quality of life.

The rankings considered metrics such as air quality, pollution, community engagement, and voter participation.

Some conservatives celebrated the news on social media.

California has the worst quality of life of the 50 US states, according to a recent ranking by U.S. News & World Report.The Golden State came in dead last in the rankings, released earlier this week in partnership with McKinsey & Co.

2. Social environment, comprising community engagement, social support, and voter participation.

North Dakota was crowned with the best quality of life, with two other Midwestern states — Minnesota and Wisconsin — rounding out the podium.

In other metrics, California didn't fare nearly as poorly. U.S. News & World Report deemed its economy the fourth best in the nation, and its business environment claimed the No. 1 spot. The state also ranked 11th in healthcare.

Still, the low mark on quality of life provided fodder for some conservative news sites and politicians.

"Californians scored poorly in part because they're simply insufferable," wrote Fox News in an article about the ranking. The article appeared on Fox News' front page under the headline "Failed State?"

Meanwhile, far-right-wing site Breitbart focused on California's high cost of living and immigration rates — two metrics that did not factor into the quality-of-life rankings.

So how they measured this is not really what I would class as a fully comprehensive look at the Quality of life of people

Hence I would take such a view based on the measures with a pinch of salt.

Well, they did pick Iowa as the best.

It's all a little subjective. But it's not subjective that the cost of living is through the roof there, which makes it difficult for anyone of moderate means or less to live there. Struggling to pay the bills is never good, no matter how pretty the landscape is.

_________________Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.

From 2013 to 2015, California had America’s 17th-highest poverty rate, 15 percent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Official Poverty Measure. That measure uses income levels to determine poverty, but does not consider differences in cost-of-living among states. It lists the official poverty threshold for a two-adult, two-child family at $24,036 in 2015.

During the same period, California had the highest poverty rate, 20.6 percent, according to the census’ Supplemental Poverty Measure. That study does account for cost-of-living, including taxes, housing and medical costs, and is considered by researchers a more accurate reflection of poverty. For a two-adult, two-child family in California, the poverty threshold was an average of $30,000, depending on the region in the state, according to a 2014 analysis by Public Policy Institute of California.

Maddog wrote:From 2013 to 2015, California had America’s 17th-highest poverty rate, 15 percent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Official Poverty Measure. That measure uses income levels to determine poverty, but does not consider differences in cost-of-living among states. It lists the official poverty threshold for a two-adult, two-child family at $24,036 in 2015.

During the same period, California had the highest poverty rate, 20.6 percent, according to the census’ Supplemental Poverty Measure. That study does account for cost-of-living, including taxes, housing and medical costs, and is considered by researchers a more accurate reflection of poverty. For a two-adult, two-child family in California, the poverty threshold was an average of $30,000, depending on the region in the state, according to a 2014 analysis by Public Policy Institute of California.

The wealth of the state leading to people wanting to move and live there.

Its a magnet

Lets face facts, it does not mean all have a poor quality of life, a certain percentage does based off how the state attracts more people than other states based on wealth. It means the state has failed to tackle these problems. Not that wealth is the problem, but how they make those less fortunate better paid

So they could afford to live there and in many parts do. The variance differs on areas on relative poverty.Lets ace facts the Spanish annexed the area and then the US.How can then they deny people wanting to come there anyway?

_________________Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.

California came in 50th place in a ranking of the US states by quality of life.

The rankings considered metrics such as air quality, pollution, community engagement, and voter participation.

Some conservatives celebrated the news on social media.

California has the worst quality of life of the 50 US states, according to a recent ranking by U.S. News & World Report.The Golden State came in dead last in the rankings, released earlier this week in partnership with McKinsey & Co.

2. Social environment, comprising community engagement, social support, and voter participation.

North Dakota was crowned with the best quality of life, with two other Midwestern states — Minnesota and Wisconsin — rounding out the podium.

In other metrics, California didn't fare nearly as poorly. U.S. News & World Report deemed its economy the fourth best in the nation, and its business environment claimed the No. 1 spot. The state also ranked 11th in healthcare.

Still, the low mark on quality of life provided fodder for some conservative news sites and politicians.

"Californians scored poorly in part because they're simply insufferable," wrote Fox News in an article about the ranking. The article appeared on Fox News' front page under the headline "Failed State?"

Meanwhile, far-right-wing site Breitbart focused on California's high cost of living and immigration rates — two metrics that did not factor into the quality-of-life rankings.

So how they measured this is not really what I would class as a fully comprehensive look at the Quality of life of people

Hence I would take such a view based on the measures with a pinch of salt.

Well, they did pick Iowa as the best.

It's all a little subjective. But it's not subjective that the cost of living is through the roof there, which makes it difficult for anyone of moderate means or less to live there. Struggling to pay the bills is never good, no matter how pretty the landscape is.

Is this the case all throughout California mate?

No, it certain parts it is and in certain parts there is major poverty

Its like how New York once was a magnet to immigration

_________________Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.

Nowhere above did I call this story "fake news", nor did I attack the news sources themselves..

I called the survey itself "faux" because that's what it is -- a bullshit fake analysis using bad methodology and cherrypicked figures, clearly manufactured to support a predetermined agenda -- i.e. the pre-supposition that the more liberal-leaning and wealthier states must somehow by definition be the worst places to live; whereas the poorest and crappiest redneck hellholes will of course be in truth paradise on Earth, because all of those God-fearing whitefolks go to their KKK church on Sunday and take their AR-15s to bed each night.

_________________It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see.Our life is frittered away by details. Simplify, simplify.The mass of men lead lives of quite desperation.Henry David Thoreau

California came in 50th place in a ranking of the US states by quality of life.

The rankings considered metrics such as air quality, pollution, community engagement, and voter participation.

Some conservatives celebrated the news on social media.

California has the worst quality of life of the 50 US states, according to a recent ranking by U.S. News & World Report.The Golden State came in dead last in the rankings, released earlier this week in partnership with McKinsey & Co.

2. Social environment, comprising community engagement, social support, and voter participation.

North Dakota was crowned with the best quality of life, with two other Midwestern states — Minnesota and Wisconsin — rounding out the podium.

In other metrics, California didn't fare nearly as poorly. U.S. News & World Report deemed its economy the fourth best in the nation, and its business environment claimed the No. 1 spot. The state also ranked 11th in healthcare.

Still, the low mark on quality of life provided fodder for some conservative news sites and politicians.

"Californians scored poorly in part because they're simply insufferable," wrote Fox News in an article about the ranking. The article appeared on Fox News' front page under the headline "Failed State?"

Meanwhile, far-right-wing site Breitbart focused on California's high cost of living and immigration rates — two metrics that did not factor into the quality-of-life rankings.

So how they measured this is not really what I would class as a fully comprehensive look at the Quality of life of people

Hence I would take such a view based on the measures with a pinch of salt.

Well, they did pick Iowa as the best.

It's all a little subjective. But it's not subjective that the cost of living is through the roof there, which makes it difficult for anyone of moderate means or less to live there. Struggling to pay the bills is never good, no matter how pretty the landscape is.

Well naturally. All the best people are from Iowa.

Land of soy beans, the Butter Cow, Radar from M*A*S*H, Bill Bryson, the Cyclones, Maid-Rites and the best damn fresh corn you’ll ever taste.

Quill I’m aware of the water issue. One of my Dan Francisco relatives is involved in it.

_________________Do you think you'll be the guy - to make the Queen of the Angels sigh?

Nowhere above did I call this story "fake news", nor did I attack the news sources themselves..

I called the survey itself "faux" because that's what it is -- a bullshit fake analysis using bad methodology and cherrypicked figures, clearly manufactured to support a predetermined agenda -- i.e. the pre-supposition that the more liberal-leaning and wealthier states must somehow by definition be the worst places to live; whereas the poorest and crappiest redneck hellholes will of course be in truth paradise on Earth, because all of those God-fearing whitefolks go to their KKK church on Sunday and take their AR-15s to bed each night.

Write something worth paying attention to instead of a juvenile explosion of anger.

Until then I'll pretty much ignore most of you post.

_________________Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.

Nowhere above did I call this story "fake news", nor did I attack the news sources themselves..

I called the survey itself "faux" because that's what it is -- a bullshit fake analysis using bad methodology and cherrypicked figures, clearly manufactured to support a predetermined agenda -- i.e. the pre-supposition that the more liberal-leaning and wealthier states must somehow by definition be the worst places to live; whereas the poorest and crappiest redneck hellholes will of course be in truth paradise on Earth, because all of those God-fearing whitefolks go to their KKK church on Sunday and take their AR-15s to bed each night.

Write something worth paying attention to instead of a juvenile explosion of anger.

Until then I'll pretty much ignore most of you post.

As as well as comprehension, it appears that clear and rational thinking is another quality sadly lacking in your approach to this topic...

I wonder how their rankings would look if they factored in each state's proportion of mass school shootings, or whether under-age marriages are still legal, or whether it's acceptable to carry AR15s into evangelical church services, or if their state legislature demands that Creationism be taught in schools..

_________________It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see.Our life is frittered away by details. Simplify, simplify.The mass of men lead lives of quite desperation.Henry David Thoreau

Raggamuffin wrote:Quality of life is all relative because people have different ideas as to what it means. It might mean good public transport, sociable neighbours, good pubs, nice weather, higher pay, etc.

True, but costs are pretty is easy to measure, and if you struggle more than others to pay your bills because of high costs, your quality of life will suffer.

Much of California has the weather and scenery. Other than that it's an expensive plantation where your master pretty much controls your life.

_________________Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.

Syl wrote:Sad....I was brought up thinking California must be a fabulous place to be thanks to songs by The mamas and the papas and the Beach boys.

Hmmmm8 have heard some feedback about California and it is oftentimes referred to as being a bit, how can I put this bluntly, full of over-inflated egos and lots of fakeries.

I guess there are many places like that, but no offence to anyone, unless it was free, it’s not a place that I feel I could find soul and sanctuary or a place I could really learn from, so I’ll probably never go.

_________________No one ever made a difference by being like everyone else.

I can invent a poll that makes Pittsburgh the finest beach-front place in the country. Just ask the right questions of the right people.

That’s how a lot of polls work. Remember that when you use one.

I rarely quote polls. I'm more of an idea/logic man.

Logic yes. I don’t think you’re open-minded enough on some topics to be creative with ideas though you are better than some on here, just my opinion. And also you really don’t read too well, you often miss critical information or misquote things.

You should just do what I do and admit that you can’t be arsed to read the whole thread or article properly. I’m a lazy reader sometimes when it comes to long-winded articles. They bore the absolute tits off me.

Last edited by eddie on Sat Mar 03, 2018 8:23 pm; edited 1 time in total

_________________No one ever made a difference by being like everyone else.

Logic yes. I don’t think you’re open-minded enough on some topics to be creative with ideas though you are better than some on here, just my opinion. And also you really don’t read too well, you often miss critical information or misquote things.

You should just do what I do and admit that you can’t be arsed to read the whole thread or article properly. I’m a lazy reader sometimes when it comes to long-winded articles. They bore the absolute tits off me.

Au contraire, the constant complaint directed at me is that I'm too bookish, and lack enough experience, street-wise. Ask nicko. Which is it? Do I read too much, or too little?

The only posts I don't read are those written in inebriation, and frankly, many of the late night posters simply cannot be understood. (If you'd like, I'll point them out to you, although it would go nowhere.)

A lot of Internet criticism comes in the form of canned arguments. The you don't read can sounds effective, because it conveys a dual message: 1) you are wrong-headed; and 2) the reason why you're wrong is, you don't use proper methods (reading). It can never be disproved, so it's almost euphemistic. It's as useless as calling a liberal a snowflake. As a consequence, it's one of the oldest canned arguments on the Internet. It's more of a rhetorical device than a serious remark, and I treat it as such.

Last edited by Original Quill on Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:02 pm; edited 1 time in total

eddie wrote:You don’t read posts and articles properly on here. That’s what I meant. You get told often enough by quite a few people on this forum.

Don’t worry. It’s not a major crime. You can be in my gang.

Like I said, it's euphemistic. Obviously, given the many passions my posts inspire, I'm doing all right. Some responses hurled in anger, some not, but always interested...

You admit to an even greater failing:

eddie wrote:You should just do what I do and admit that you can’t be arsed to read the whole thread or article properly. I’m a lazy reader sometimes when it comes to long-winded articles. They bore the absolute tits off me.

...yet you comment anyway. The problem with not fully reading, is you don't fully comprehend. In effect, that way you change the topic of conversation. There are other ways to do this...eg, pick up where the OP left off and devise an answer, or alternative (completely different) answers. But this requires reading...and you must leave some connective tissue to your answer, such that the whole body (thread) hangs together.

Very often, I have a completely different answer. My fault is not that I didn't read, but that I didn't leave enough connective tissue to show that I'm continuing the conversation.